Moblogic | Bill Cammack

Lindsay gave some good (and typical) examples of women NOT speaking up for themselves. I think that for the population she sampled, her results were accurate.

In general, women are not trained from birth to be leaders. The training they receive is how to be useful to men. The toys, clothes and education they receive early on prepares them to raise children (baby dolls), prepare food (ovens), keep the house clean (dining room sets, vacuum cleaners), be docile and lady-like (clothes, etiquette training).

Meanwhile, boys are trained from day 1 to take what they want out of life. We get footballs (football is the replacement for war), other sports equipment (impose your will on the other players/team), boxing lessons (defend the family), action figures (expand your mind, take over the universe)… Basically, we’re trained to be aggressive right out of the gate. We have to be better than the next guy to pull the girls. We have to be better than the next guy to get the jobs. Our whole existence is geared towards being the best we can be and taking stuff from other people.

So, women in general aren’t trained to be aggressive. The reason I brought up the population that Lindsay sampled is that it’s not like she was at a BlogHer conference and asking women who make major decisions every single day what their opinions were about things they actually think about and can discuss intelligently. She was asking random women, walking down the street thinking about…… whatever women think as they’re walking down the street to weigh in on topics which require thought and most importantly, the ability and desire to make a stand.

As I mentioned, the average woman isn’t trained to “make stands”… not in being interviewed on the street and not in dating. How many times have you asked “where do you want to go?” and heard “Oh.. I don’t know… You choose!”? How many times have YOU have to make the decision on where to eat? How many times have YOU had to approach a female that was obviously sweating you but was scared to approach you and let you know what she wants? It’s all the same thing.

Of course, you can see in the video that it gets worse when women pair bond. NOW, they not only don’t want to take a stand for themselves, but they don’t want to make their man look stupid, so they defer to him and let him speak for “the family”.

Another problem with getting women to speak (or rap to you when they know they WANT to) is fear of rejection. Women just HAAAATE to be rejected. :D Taking a stand is a setup for rejection. As long as they don’t state a position, nobody can judge them because of it. Similarly, if they don’t approach you in a bar, but instead wait for you to walk over to them, if the rap doesn’t work out, they convince themselves that YOU lost out instead of them. You could see by the way the indoor chick freaked out that she had no intention of taking a stand, which was going to open her up to criticism, judgement and potentially rejection. When Lindsay said the video wasn’t going to television, but to the internet, the chick practically sprinted away, saying “Oh! That’s even WORSE! :O” hahahaha

If you want to interview average-jane women walking around the streets of Manhattan in the daytime when they SHOULD be at work, grindin’, making major decisions and bringing added value to their companies… ask them about something they’re likely to know about and be comfortable talking about… fashion… shopping… vacation locations… restaurants… raising kids….. well, maybe not raising kids, since there are so many nannies in Manhattan, hahaha :D

OH! Ask them about pets! Women in NYC always have pets. Ask them about dogs or cats. They can talk about that… or HÃ¤agen-Dazs ice cream!

So, if Moblogic insists on talking to women about politics, they’re going to have to step their game up and go where there are women that actually contemplate that stuff and are willing to share their opinions and stand by what they said. It’s no problem to get guys to talk about stuff, because that’s what guys do all day… make stands and defend positions. Startups, stock market trading, professional sports, all this stuff is imposing your will on other people and holding the line. You want people to buy from YOU instead of the next man. You want YOUR team to be world champions instead of the next guy’s team. You have an opinion about things, and you’re prepared to express that to the world and debate your point because you’ve thought about it and you believe in it.

Even that “Darth Vader / Puppies” idiot at the end of the show… He BELIEVES in what he’s saying. He’s willing to express his idea to Lindsay and the cameraperson and the MobLogic viewership because as ridiculous as it sounds, he’s prepared to debate and defend his position, win or lose….. well… Besides the fact that he probably was enjoying kicking it with Lindsay and was just saying anything he could so she wouldn’t go away, hahahaha :D

Social Media

Eye Candy

Posted by Bill Cammack On March - 10 - 2008

Tyme White linked me to Caroline McCarthy’s article where she interviewed Lindsay Campbell. I found this exchange particularly interesting:

McCarthy: The “girl in front of a camera, talking about stuff” has almost become a Web clichÃ© by now. How do you hope that Moblogic will be different?

Campbell: One of the things that we’d like to move beyond is just being a Web talking head, like a Web counterpart to the TV talking heads. So a lot of the talking on the show is going to be done by people that we meet all over the country, and eventually hopefully in other countries, about the topics that we’re talking about. I’m not an expert, I’m just expert at talking to people, and that’s how the stories are going to get formed.

I found it cool that Caroline brought up what I affectionately call “the formula”, since it’s been my experience that everybody knows it’s going on, but nobody wants to discuss it.

“The Formula” for internet shows is that no matter how your content is aggregated, researched or scripted, make sure you have an attractive female in front of the camera to “talk about stuff”. That’s pretty much it. :D The obvious problem here is that it’s very tough (if not impossible) to tell who’s tuning in to hear about the content, and who’s tuning in to “check out the chick”.

Does it matter why they tuned in? No. Views are views. Sponsors and advertisers want to know how many times their ad is going to be shown. Revenue Sharing is based on hits, not “reasons why”. Also, I’m not knocking utilizing Eye Candy (EC) to draw attention to a show or product or get guys to concentrate on the screen long enough for your message to get across. :D It’s the same thing as having “booth babes” at conventions or car shows.

Or, is it?……..

I think it’s very important to note what percentage of your show’s props are due to content vs the looks and hopefully TALENT of the EC. There are several flavors of EC:

1) Entirely Talentless = Just looks
2) Knows how to read the teleprompter, but not theatrically
3) Enthusiastic and personable, but not knowledgeable
4) Researched and wrote her own material
5) Actually lives what she’s presenting about, obviously knowledgeable and speaking from a first-hand, in-the-trenches perspective.

I suppose flavors 4 and 5 might not qualify for EC, because you’re not “dressing up the show” by having her speak. She’s not a front. She’s the actual show. If you ran into her in person, she could intelligently engage you in conversation about facts that didn’t come up on the show or tangents she didn’t explore. However, for the purpose of this discussion, I’d like to include all the flavors as we consider how dependent your show is on the EC.

So… Let’s think about what happens when “The Face Of The Show” leaves the show…..

Let’s say you’re doing a show with an ECfl5. Actually, there wouldn’t be much for you to do except tell her when the camera’s on. :D She knows the material, she’s prepared what she wants to say, and really all you’re doing (if she needs you for anything at all instead of producing her own show completely independently) is helping HER to bring her vision to the masses. There is no “leaving the show”, because she IS the show. If she makes another show, it’ll be the exact same thing, with a new name, and without YOU connected to it. :)

ECfl4 is pretty much the same thing, except it’s likely that the research she’s doing doesn’t make her AS unique as an ECfl5, though she’s still extremely important for the show to have the same style and delivery. If she leaves the show, not just the look of the show changes, but you’ve lost the ability to write the shows in the same way that you did when you were building your audience. Also, if she joins another team or makes a similar show on her own, she automatically transfers the style of your show to hers. You can get another researcher, but if your viewers don’t appreciate her looks AND her new style, that might be all she wrote.

ECfl3 is a pretty good combination for both sides in a show break-up. :) Guys love to watch her talk. She’s fun and interesting. She’s someone that they would love to actually meet in person at a conference. Perfect. :D At the same time, since she’s not the writer or researcher on the project, none of the infrastructure disappears if she leaves. She’s “acting” what you tell her to act, so that’s what she’ll do on her new show. There are mannerisms that she’ll bring to the new venture that come from working with you or your team, but for you, transitioning to new on-air talent is seamless. She’s basically an informed spokesperson. The information doesn’t leave with her, and next week… (well… whenever you get new EC hahaha) the show goes on as planned.

ECfl2 is pretty much dime-a-dozen. Imagine the reading skills of a used car salesman in a late-night low-budget television commercial. “This. Is. Not. A. Lemon… Believe. You. Me….. I. Gah.Rohn.TEE. Ya. That.” In this case, you might be better off taking your chances and using an actual guy. :D … Or, at least a less-attractive female that can actually deliver the lines well and make your show look intelligent.

The problem here is in comparison to the better flavors. ECfl3 is like having a conversation with a friend. ECfl4&5 are like hearing a technical conversation… Like last year at BlogHerBiz ‘07 when Lisa Stone moderated a panel which included Google’s VP of Search Products and User Experience, Marissa Mayer:

So, once you’ve heard knowledgeable women “kick it, off the top” about intelligent and progressive subjects, you’re just like “oh, come on :/” when the ECfl2’s trying to read sentences and pause because she sees a period, and didn’t understand until then that the sentence was about to end. :D

Also, that’s the fault of the producer or whomever’s in charge of the production. If there’s a bad read, have the talent DO.IT.OVER! :/

Which brings us to ECfl1, hehehe… This is when the producer says “I don’t care WHAT you people think! I know she can’t act and I know she can’t read, but she looks good, so I’m going to get hits and that’s all that matters”. Content-wise, these could actually be silent videos, or at least without her talking, because nobody’s listening anyway. It’s kind of a cycle… Since the EC has no mental connection to the material (if you bothered to write any material in the first place) the people who find out about your show and continue to watch it are tuning in to see how the EC looks this week. Because of this, if she leaves the show, your ratings leave with her because the EC *IS* the show, so you’re kaput.

So… Interestingly enough, if you’re a show producer, “middle of the road” is the way to go. If she knows too much, your show suffers when she leaves because she removes the infrastructure. If she comes off as a dolt or a simpleton, your show suffers when she leaves because NOW you have to survive off of the merit of your content….. Content which you disrespected in the first place by not selecting the right woman to represent your project from the giddyap.

And now, in the spirit of EC, I gratuitously embed pictures of Caroline McCarthy and Stephanie Frasco so people will click on my article! :D